Clinton Tax Returns Question -- ANSWERED!

[DemsUnited]

Is she holding back just the 2006 - 2007 returns?

Or is it 2000 - 2007 (effectively all the post-White House years) returns that haven't been released?

I've seen it reported both ways and would love clarification & links to sources if possible...

Thanks!

On Edit:
Answered my own question. Amazing what the google can do...

From Washington Post Fact Checker http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/03/taxing_questions_for_clinton.html

<snip>
The Clintons stopped disclosing their tax returns after they left the White House in 2000, and their incomes began to soar, with book deals and lecture fees. Hillary did not release her returns during her Senate re-election campaign in 2006. Instead, she pointed to the annual financial disclosure forms that she files as a U.S. senator which are available here and here.
<snip>

Okay, now I'm getting a little outraged. Just Xerox the darn 2000 - 2006 returns, please.

[pkz]

1. she does file annual disclosure for the Senate

here is the one for 2006

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/congress/fin_dis/2006/c001041.pdf

[IndianaGreen]

2. It lacks the detail of an income tax schedule

The Monster fears we will find who she sleeps, from a personal financial point of view.

[pkz]

19. $50,000,0000.00

box has an X in it

[pkz]

3. No public release of returns

for the Clintons' 2000-2007

[pkz]

10. page 7 is interesting enough

in the senate disclosure
link in reply#1

[DemsUnited]

18. Yup, pkz, just been perusing that page myself.

Several pages of nice honoraria for Bill, but you know what? He earned them. Yes he did.

But page 7 is *very* interesting -- what exactly is in those accounts and where did it come from? There's really nothing in the senate disclosure form that sheds daylight on investments, real estate transactions, etc, but a tax return would show some of this type of information.

Also, does Bill have accounts in his name only that not required to be disclosed on this senate disclosure form? It appears to my uneducated eye that this may be true. Again, this would be disclosed on a joint tax return.

And the bottom line for me is, come on. I'll give you 2007, no problem. But 2000 - 2006 could be disclosed tomorrow if the Clintons wanted them to be.

[Mother Of Four]

47. Wow...

My interest rates are lower than theirs :wow:


Now....How much do you want to bet we are paying a higher percentage of our income in taxes than they do? Hm?

[jbnow]

48. Some differences in what disclosure forms

and tax returns would reveal are noted here in the Wall Street Journal
Clintons' Tax Returns Would Cast a Wider Light

An excerpt

However, neither of those forms fully reports Mr. Clinton's income. For certain types of spousal compensation -- such as consulting arrangements -- the forms reveal only the source of funds, and the fact that the payment exceeds $1,000. They don't say how much over $1,000.

Mrs. Clinton's forms make such a notation for infoUSA Inc., an Omaha, Neb., provider of marketing information that is headed by Vinod Gupta, a friend and political supporter of the Clintons.

A filing made as part of a shareholder lawsuit in Delaware state court against Mr. Gupta and others contends that, under a consulting agreement, infoUSA paid Mr. Clinton $2.1 million from July 2003 to April 2005 and agreed to pay him an additional $1.2 million through 2008. The suit contends that corporate assets were misused in various ways.

(snip)

Mrs. Clinton's presidential disclosure form shows that her husband had received as much as $17,500 in interest income from Yucaipa holdings since the beginning of 2006. It also said Mr. Clinton received a "guaranteed" partnership payment of "over $1,000." The Clintons' tax returns likely would give a clearer idea of the precise magnitude of that partnership payment and possibly other details about his partnership arrangement with Yucaipa.

Well this is strange. I was going to find an earlier NYT article that noted it was thought that the infoUSA shareholder lawsuit was part of the reason for delaying release of tax return. Then I thought it would be quicker to grab an article via google news I had read the other day and see if it said when the trial was.
The 1st article had thought since part of the lawsuit was about money paid to Bill and the flights to the Clintons that her taxes revealing exact amount could add fuel to the fire, so maybe they expected it to be over by mid-April.

I put infoUSA shareholder lawsuit into gogle and there it was
"InfoUSA says SEC and internal investigations delays annual report"
Except the page said "file not available"
So I put the title into google and I found the article but it was posted at Free Republic and who wants to post that.
But the other ones were "file not available". I went back to the news and there was the article again but in shorter form. All the articles that were there again were in shorter form.

It was an AP article from 2/7 so AP must have changed it but do they change old versions?

But here's the difference. This is the article that remains now

InfoUSA says SEC and internal investigations delays annual report

Database provider infoUSA Incorporated says it's annual report will be late because of an ongoing Securities and Exchange Commission investigation and a shareholder lawsuit that questions the company's spending.

InfoUSA said in a news release Friday it won't be able to meet the SEC's March 17 deadline for timely filing of its annual report.

InfoUSA formed a special board committee in December to respond to an SEC investigation and a shareholder lawsuit.

The lawsuit claims the company misspent millions, some of it on Bill and Hillary Clinton.

The SEC has asked InfoUSA to produce spending-related documents and documentation related to some trading in the company's securities.

This is the missing part from the full article. I'll repeat the paragraph the other one ends with also in this one.
I apologize, it is free republic.

InfoUSA says SEC and internal investigations delays annual report

Under its investigation, the SEC requested infoUSA produce spending-related documents and documentation related to some trading in the company's securities, infoUSA said.

The shareholder lawsuit questions why infoUSA founder Vin Gupta used private corporate jets to fly the Clintons on business, personal and campaign trips, why Gupta gave Bill Clinton a $3.3 million consulting contract and why the company paid for extravagant luxuries Gupta enjoyed.

Investment manager Cardinal Value Equity Partners and hedge fund Dolphin Limited Partnership filed the lawsuit last year alleging Gupta misspent millions of dollars in corporate funds.

According to the lawsuit, InfoUSA has spent nearly $900,000 since 2001 flying the Clintons to domestic and international locations and political events.

Gupta has been a major donor to Democrats and gave at least $1 million to Bill Clinton's presidential library in Arkansas. Gupta also took part in a June fundraiser for Hillary Clinton in Manhattan.

A spokesman for Hillary Clinton said in May that all the flights connected to InfoUSA were reimbursed and disclosed in accordance with Federal Election Commission and Senate ethics rules.

The investment managers also say InfoUSA paid for use of a jet plane, the 80-foot yacht American Princess, condos in Hawaii and California and a University of Nebraska-Lincoln stadium box.

Some of the $28 million in "related-party transactions" the investment managers have questioned included payments to Annapurna Corp., which Gupta owned.
In the past, Gupta and InfoUSA have said the jet, condos, stadium box and American Princess are for entertaining clients.

InfoUSA executives were not available at the company's Omaha headquarters Friday. InfoUSA said it plans to file the report as soon as it can after the deadline.

I don't know what to make of that. Do they change 3 day old articles? Could just be timing that makes it feel strange.

Anyway I was going to just try to make sense of it because if the company was in the middle of the lawsuit it would make sense that she wouldn't want their tax return to be called into play.

Anyway the basic information on the lawsuit. The Clintons are not accused of any wrong doing here, Gupta is accused of misspending. (Though infoUSA is being investigated for some ugly stuff unrelated to this)

Here is when it was the law suit was first filed on may 26 2007
Suit Sheds Light on Clintons’ Ties to a Benefactor

Here is when the SEC investigation started 11/22/2007
S.E.C. Investigates Company Founded by Clinton Donor

[Evergreen Emerald]

4. Obama has not given his tax returns. What is he hiding?

[Johnny__Motown]

6. yes he has, all of them are out there..... look it up

[Evergreen Emerald]

7. not 2007.

And you know this is a load of bullshit that the Obama supporters just love to jump in. While our economy goes in the toilet Obama continues to attack Clinton on meaningless crap.

Because of course he can not compete if it has anything to do with issues. So, he resorts to lies and distortions.

[mmonk]

8. 2007 tax returns aren't the issue. They are due this year.

[Evergreen Emerald]

9. Of course they are. Or is it only when it suits Obama that they become an issue?

The fallacy of your argument has just been laid bare for all to see.

[fadedrose]

12. He can't show a copy of something he may not have filed yet...

He has till April 15.

[pkz]

14. I professionally prepare taxes

busy people do not even have their 2007 taxes completed yet, and will probably file an extension anyway.
2007 taxes are not the issue here.

The fact is: the Clintons have not publically released a single return since they left the White House

[goclark]

29. Obama can show his 07 when she shows her 07

and not before.

He has put the others out there.

Hope everyone saw how she stumbled when asked that question in the debate?

I could tell her pants were "on fire."

[pointsoflight]

44. OMG, people on here are so intellectually dishonest

No one has any issue with either Obama or Clinton putting their 2007 tax return out there shortly after the April 15 deadline. The issue is that Hillary, and Hillary alone, is refusing to release past year's tax returns that have already been complete and filed, and would only need to be copied at the local Kinko's.

[mmonk]

49. The fallacy of your argument is 2007 taxes aren't even due yet

but the ones the Clinton's are withholding are all in the past.

[TexasLady]

11. Hell, I just filed my 2007 return last WEEK!

[Evergreen Emerald]

13. Right. But, you are not runnig for president. He should have gotten that out

post haste for all to see--why didn't he? What is he hiding?

[chascarrillo]

21. ludicrous

Don't insult our intelligence. Thanks.

[Evergreen Emerald]

27. right...I forgot. Anything Clinton does = bad

Anything Obama does, you will spend hours making excuses for.

It is the same non-issue 2006, 2007. But, go ahead. Make it an issue for your. Ignore the real issues like economy and health care. Ignore the lies that Obama told to the press about Nafta and Rezko, but go after Clinton's PUBLIC finance records...yeah. Look that way.

What a load of bullshit.

[NDambi]

34. What a pathetic attempt to excuse why the Clinton's have releases their returns...very weak

[psychopomp]

38. That's right... we want to see those tax returns

The only "load of bullshit" is Sen. Clinton telling us she can't take the time to release her tax data. It just takes one phone call to her accountant to "xerox" that paperwork.

[chascarrillo]

45. "It is the same non-issue 2006, 2007." Good grief!

Honestly, this response just astounds me. Do you honestly not understand the difference between a tax return that was due eleven months ago and one that is due one month from now?

Honestly?

[Divernan]

31. I don't think she can help it, given the paucity of facts she has to rely on.

Plus, you know, the lower educational level/intelligence and all. Evidently she can't comprehend simple things like filing deadlines, the differences between yes, he has filed 2000-2006, and no, she hasn't filed any of those years.

Plus the baldfaced lie in her post number 4.

So onto ignore she goes!

[Yurovsky]

22. He's hiding the fact that he has over a month left...

to file the goddamn thing.

Clintons are hiding the fact that they are a subsidary of the Emir of Dubai & the House of Saud. That shit is going to blow up in her face eventually. You think the GOP won't get their hands on that??? And THAT won't be enough for the GOP to continue to scare rubes into voting for them???

She is damaged goods. Her getting the nomination GUARANTEES 4-8 more years of GOP atrocities.

[CreekDog]

39. by your standard he is hiding nothing

because you don't believe HRC is hiding anything by not showing her 2007 returns yet.

next question?

[Johnny__Motown]

15. we were talking 2000-2006 I am sure his will be released prior to PA

just to draw contrast to the fact that she still won't release even her old ones.


Post this again on 4/22 if you want.

[Hepburn]

16. Hint:

2007 are not due to be filed until April 15th....duh.....:eyes:

[dkf]

20. Have you completed your 2007 return yet?

I haven't even got my papers together yet. Ridiculous.

[TomClash]

24. The 2007 returns are due APRIL 15, 2008

That's five weeks away.

[NDambi]

33. She can shut it down and just release 2000-2006, it really very easy...she's dancing for a reason..

[anonymous171]

5. This is starting to get kind of creepy...

[pkz]

17. O campaign needs the Uncle Sam guy

During her Senate campaign Clinton used a guy dressed as Uncle Sam to follow Lazio around and ask him where his returns were.
They pressured Lazio hard.

[Coexist]

23. Xerox them, Hillary!

[LiberalArkie]

25. Bill was supposedly millions in debt when he left the Whitehouse.

And homeless also. If I went from millions in debt to the income level he is, I would be under investigation for something.

[stray cat]

26. All of the above and then some....

[1776Forever]

28. Just as a side note - A trial is going to be held in Oct. 2008 because they (?) didn't file $2 Mil

given to them by Peter Paul, who was a partner with Marvel Comic tycoon Stan Lee. Paul is saying he gave the Clinton's 2 Million in contributions for the Senate race in NY for Hillary that the Clinton's did not acknowledge when they filed their paperwork from the Senate, and the story was on ABC and other networks but recently nothing has been said about it. Then a judge said in Jan. 08 that the trial can go on in Oct. 08.

Paul v. Clinton - video on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xq8aopATYyw&feature=related

Make sure you watch both 1 & 2 - This in no way says that Clinton is guilty BUT the trial is going to be coming up in Oct, 08! It is hard to believe that the Clinton's would think they could get away with this if it is true. We will have to let it play itself out like the Rezko trial, but it sure is something that make Rezko look small in comparison!

:nopity:

[pkz]

30. found a great source

for all the disclosure statements, including Senate and Presidential campaign

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4990787&mesg_id=4990787

[suston96]

32. That financial disclosure from the US Senate has plenty of information including ALL income from ...

...speeches and where the money comes from.

She already said that her tax returns will be released. I have spent years doing tax returns and that Senate disclosure statement is far more detailed than the 1040 as far as sources of income from the speeches and appearances by Bill Clinton that so many people whined about here.

[pkz]

36. It's not the amount that bugs me

but the write-offs and the capital gains would be great to see on those forms, along with the amount of tax owed.

[suston96]

37. And what makes you think that a Republican owned IRS would allow shady deductions...? nt

[seafan]

35. For the record, here is Obama's tax return for 2006, all 23 pages of it.

Obama 2006 Tax Return



Now, where is Hillary Clinton's 2006 return?

Actually, let's begin in 2004, when, after modest returns documenting the first few years out of office, the Clintons' income suddenly hit the stratosphere.

[chill_wind]

40. I really don't understand all the apologists. It would take her a 5 min call to her accountant.

He/she could xerox them right over to her/all parties concerned. Contoversery closed.

What's the problem?

[Vinca]

41. Maybe there's something there she doesn't want us to see.

Even with the books, it's hard to imagine Bill raked in enough money to put them at their current stratospheric levels. (If he did, I have to question Obama's sanity. He talks circles around Bill and could be living "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous.")

[chill_wind]

42. Clinton's N.Y House Deal "A clever & unusual piece of Financial Engineering "(NYT)

I started a post about this in the wrong DU area, but I think it relates to the general vein of questioning here. Seems protection from disclosure and keeping things "discreet" has been their long-standing and careful game plan.

(...)
"The deal calls for Terry McAuliffe, President Clinton's chief political fund-raiser, to personally supply $1.35 million in collateral that the lender, Bankers Trust Private Banking, could seize should the Clintons fail to make payments on a house costing more than three times what a Presidential salary could support.


(see full text)
By putting up cash rather than making a guarantee or by co-signing, McAuliffe avoids either party's having to bare their financial souls. "There's the ability to remain discreet," said Melissa Cohn, president of the Manhattan Mortgage Company. "It saves them from any disclosure."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2979726

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D00E5D8133AF937A3575AC0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1

[chill_wind]

43. kick n/t

[psychopomp]

46. Did she find that xerox machine yet?